Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:31:44 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150904203144.GB463@muck>
References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
	<CABaSBaw7hM2qmuR6Z6USy5=V9NGeCPKmHHuVOH=vexDk7kY8OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAxp-m_vo5vJEemR_hRX3hNcUPveA6EHn-ZFMJo8ke59E6BrKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzvanj41Dfa4kQsq5SVvt-Zeee2SOfD3Uws-FpBQsyZsqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAxp-m_EmMbVBqQK9ijoe+n0dAs726TaBX5m1Wgzsv-m1KHdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="neYutvxvOLaeuPCA"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAxp-m_EmMbVBqQK9ijoe+n0dAs726TaBX5m1Wgzsv-m1KHdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process
Precedence: list


--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:13:18PM -0700, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>=20
> My proposal isn't perfect for sure. There's likely much better ways to do
> it. But to be clear what I'm trying to solve is basically this:
>=20
> Who makes high-level Bitcoin decisions? Miners, client devs, merchants, or
> users? Let's set up a system where everyone has a say and clear acceptance
> can be reached.

It depends on a case-by-case basis.

E.g. for soft-forks miners can do what they want with little ability for
other parties to have a say. For non-consensus-related standards - e.g.
address formats - it's quite possible for a BIP to be "accepted" even if
only a small group of users use the standard. For hard-forks almost
everyone is involved, though who can stop a fork isn't as well defined.

IMO trying to "set up a system" in that kind of environment is silly,
and likely to be a bureaucratic waste of time. Let the market decide, as
has happened previously. If you're idea isn't getting acceptance, do a
better job of convincing the people who need to adopt it that it is a
good idea.

No amount of words on paper will change the fact that we can't force
people to run software they don't want to run. The entire formal part of
the BIP process is simply a convenience so we have clear, short, numbers
that we can refer to when discussing ideas and standards. The rest of
the process - e.g. what Adam Back and others have been referring to when
attempting to dissuade Hearn and Andresen - is by definition always
going to be a fuzzy, situation-specific, and generally undefined
process.

Or put another way, even if you did create your proposed process, the
first time those committees "approved" a BIP that relevant stakeholders
disagreed with, you'd find out pretty quickly that "clear acceptance" of
your 4% sample would fall apart the moment the other 96% realized what a
tiny minority was intending to do. Particularly if it was one of the
inhernet cases where the underlying math means a particular group - like
miners - has the ability to override what another group wants out of
Bitcoin.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000010f9e95aff6454fedb9d0a4b92a4108e9449c507936f9f18

--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=OCZk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA--